Skip to main content

Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess School Inc.

Ohio Ct. App.June 8, 2017No. 103714Cited 18 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Keough
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful TerminationBreach of Contract

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Cruz's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was partially affirmed with remittitur on damages, while Kaiser's wrongful termination claim was reversed. Attorney fee awards were reduced on appeal.

Excerpt

intentional infliction of emotional distress, severe and debilitating, wrongful discharge, public policy, child abuse, remittitur, attorney fees, lodestar calculation, contingency fee agreement, deviation, sanctions, frivolous conduct, R.C. 2323.51, media. Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict or JNOV where sufficient evidence was presented that defendant's conduct caused plaintiff severe and debilitating emotional distress whether plaintiff's evidence actually proved her case was for the jury to determine. Plaintiff's claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy survived defendant's motion for directed verdict and JNOV because the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy for wrongful termination when the defendants terminated her for not dissuading the report of child abuse. Trial court abused its discretion by ordering remittitur without considering any of the criteria that must be met before a court may grant remittitur, including that the plaintiff agreed to the reduction in damages. The trial court abused its discretion in limiting the review of attorney fees to only those incurred by the lead attorney and then deviating from the lodestar amount based solely on the contingency fee agreement. Contacting a media outlet to cover a trial does not constitute frivolous conduct in violation of R.C. 2323.51 where the information provided is protected speech and does not violate the ethical rules.

What This Ruling Means

**Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess School: What Workers Need to Know** This case involved disputes between workers and the English Nanny & Governess School. One employee, Cruz, claimed the company caused her severe emotional distress through its conduct. Another worker, Kaiser, was allegedly wrongfully fired. The employees also raised claims about defamation, broken contracts, and violations of public policy related to child abuse reporting. The appeals court reached a mixed decision. Cruz partially won her emotional distress claim, though the court reduced the amount of money she could receive. However, Kaiser lost his wrongful termination case on appeal. The court also cut down the attorney fees that had been awarded to the workers. This case matters for workers because it shows that employers can be held responsible when their actions cause severe emotional harm to employees. However, it also demonstrates that winning these cases can be challenging - courts will carefully review damage awards and may reduce them. Workers should know that emotional distress claims are possible but difficult to prove, and even when successful, the final compensation may be less than initially awarded.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.